From Sacred Groves to Green Courts: Reimagining Environmental Law and Justice in India

Abstract

India's relationship with nature goes beyond administrative functions because it involves ethical considerations and cultural elements and fundamental political aspects. The path of India's environmental governance system shows its progress from the ecological awareness found in ancient texts to the establishment of dedicated organizations such as the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which I will demonstrate throughout this paper. The subsequent sections of the text show how India has developed its environmental protection system by evolving from basic traditional conservation methods to a comprehensive legal framework that addresses the increasing challenges brought on by industrial development and urban growth and climate change impacts.

The study analyzes the main environmental laws through their structural framework which includes the Environment Protection Act 1986 and the Water and Air Acts and the Forest Conservation Act and the constitutional framework established by Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution. The judiciary plays an active role through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases and major judicial decisions which include M.C. Mehta's legal cases that define the 'right to life' as encompassing the entitlement to a clean environment.

The paper uses Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) data NGT annual reports Forest Survey of India (FSI) data and the MoEFCC environmental clearance portal to create empirical proof of a governance paradox which remains difficult to understand because between 2010 and 2023 NGT ecological litigation increased by more than 290% while air quality in India's major cities stayed in decline and project approval rates exceeded 90% during most years and forest cover increase was mostly countered by forest loss in vital ecologically sensitive territories. The conclusion I reach cautiously but with some conviction is that India's environmental governance system does not have enough resources because its fundamental structure exists to gain legitimacy instead of protecting environmental resources although the evidence for this claim exists with institutional biases which the subsequent analysis uses to explain.